What happens after we die

[rational experiences]

Humans knew most family deceased members are not contactable.

Based on water life bio support lost in bio living about a natural 200 year heavenly supported life once. So virtually half of humans life is then experienced in just a spirit life recorded.

As ice the saviour melted to put the water mass back that gets oxygenated for bio microbes to relive. Why we said the heavens saviour had allowed a human a heavenly spirit life after.

Obviously some human DNA is so harmed some humans only die. So they would instantly own an eternal being only.

Instead the alter experience is recordings form. Eventually they of course disappear. Via heavenly changes.

Instead evolving human biology gets to live longer in life until every single human is given back health. As you might survive 100 years now. The other 100 years needs to be given back first to all sick humanity for bio cell to heal into origin type.

Why we know we are a long way away from owning origin bio health.

Was a human psychic medical teaching.

The ultimate experience is to just be the eternal being no longer owning a human record to communicate with. Why we said just dying was as acceptable as living a recorded life after.

What I learnt from being a baby who nearly died gaining the two sides of life existing and early age death. To advise me why. As a healer psychic advised mind.

Babies who died changing into an adult spirit record was another proof.

 

[Truthseeker]

Personally, I think it cannot be proven about life about death from NDEs and such. I've tried that route before, and deniers will continue to deny. It's similar for me to trying to prove the existence of God with logical proofs.

I just say it is something taught by Baha'u'llah and other Messengers before Him, and if you with an open mind indepedently investigate one of these Messengers, that is the route to take, or not, as people choose. I see less good in merely believing in life after death anyway without ethical teachings involved. Something like Spiritualism is not the best route to truth and God.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What interpretations? There are no interpretations. The NDE studies are concerned with the documentation of the NDE experiences and the verification whether the reported experiences are true or mere imagination/hallucinations.

The evidence proved that the reported events/details and visual experiences of NDErs while being unconscious are real and accurate.

NDEs may appear to you to be impossible/unexplainable but that has nothing to do with the fact that the experiences are evidently true and took place as reported.



We know that the reported details of the OBEs far from the physical body were true and the blinds reported true verified visual experiences.

These types of experiences are typically assumed to be impossible. Whether the person is alive, dead, conscious or unconscious, it’s irrelevant; these experiences remain impossible in any scenario, yet it has been verified to be true events that did take place.



We know NDEs were verified as true experiences not some sort of imagination, that what really matters but other than the confirmation that the experiences are real, there is no proposed mechanism or theoretical framework to explain how did the consciousness (with unaltered self-identity) evidently travel far away from the physical body while maintaining more awareness and alertness than normal, and having accurate and true visual experiences while being unconscious, the same was true even with blind NDErs that never have any visual experiences neither before or after the NDE.



What type good evidence are you looking for to confirm the phenomenon other than the documentation and verification of hundreds of cases in credible scientific research?



The experts who studied the phenomenon on hundreds of cases confirmed that the experiences are true. You cannot possibly get a confirmation better than that.

I’m not sure what is your definition of ‘really good' evidence/confirmation, unless maybe you conduct the study yourself, but even if you do and see the exact same results. Would you accept it? I doubt it.



I’m not the one who conducted the studies or confirmed the experiences. Experts following the strict rules of scientific research did. If there is any impartiality here, it’s definitely not on my end.

If you don’t want to accept the confirmation of experts, you don’t have to. But your position is not based on the evidence. It’s merely a choice. It’s up to you.

My choice? As yours is - unless you think everyone supports your beliefs.

 

[LIIA]

I see less good in merely believing in life after death anyway without ethical teachings involved.

True, but you cannot make this leap directly from atheism to accepting ethical teachings of religions. To shift a naturalistic/materialistic mind towards the acceptance of the ethical teachings of religions, you must first address the fact that there are aspects of reality beyond the limited materialistic view, if you can get that understanding to settle, then it would open the door and encourage some who may be interested to get more knowledge of the realm of religions.

 

[LIIA]

My choice? As yours is - unless you think everyone supports your beliefs.

My choice as yours is irrelevant and No, I don’t know who may agree or disagree with my beliefs, we’re all different individuals with different views/choices. Every one is free.

I’m only trying to provide some insight with respect to the question of this thread “is there more?” Yes, there is. The reduction of reality to a materialistic view is unjustified. Death is not the end. Bill is assuming what he doesn’t know.

 

[Truthseeker]

True, but you cannot make this leap directly from atheism to accepting ethical teachings of religions. To shift a naturalistic/materialistic mind towards the acceptance of the ethical teachings of religions, you must first address the fact that there are aspects of reality beyond the limited materialistic view, if you can get that understanding to settle, then it would open the door and encourage some who may be interested to get more knowledge of the realm of religions.

I admit there is some wisdom in what you say.

 

[Mock Turtle]

My choice as yours is irrelevant and No, I don’t know who may agree or disagree with my beliefs, we’re all different individuals with different views/choices. Every one is free.

I’m only trying to provide some insight with respect to the question of this thread “is there more?” Yes, there is. The reduction of reality to a materialistic view is unjustified. Death is not the end. Bill is assuming what he doesn’t know.

Fine, but you are insisting as to such, when the consensus of science is not agreeing with you, and even though you will insist that the various bits of evidence you might believe hold true - and that is your right to believe - it is mine not to do so. So don't expect me or any others to simply fall down accepting of such simply because you or any others do so. As I commented elsewhere, some of us, and particularly science itself, have higher bars for evidence to leap over before such things are accepted.

 

[LIIA]

Fine, but you are insisting as to such,

I’m not insisting on anything, I’m only informing you of the outcome of the NDE studies. The assertions are made by expert scientists not me. The outcome is not about any interpretation; it’s mainly about the verification of the experiences being true conscious events or imagination.

when the consensus of science is not agreeing with you

Not true, the consensus of science is that the reported near-death experiences (NDEs) are verified true conscious events that took place beyond the brain and physical body itself not simply mere imagination.

and even though you will insist that the various bits of evidence you might believe hold true - and that is your right to believe - it is mine not to do so.

Then don’t, you’re free to choose for yourself.

I’m only pointing out the reasons why your reasoning is flawed and the fact that your position is not based on evidence but rather on your inclination to see things in one way or another.

So don't expect me or any others to simply fall down accepting of such simply because you or any others do so.

I don’t expect anything. I’m only informing you of some facts about the outcome of the scientific NDE studies that you may not be aware of and explaining to you why your reasoning for denying it is flawed but it’s up to you whether you want to accept it or deny it.

As I commented elsewhere, some of us, and particularly science itself, have higher bars for evidence to leap over before such things are accepted.

Such thing (NDE) is accepted, evidenced and verified by science not by my or your opinion.

With respect to the scientific verification of NDEs as factual events, your claim about the need for “higher bars” of scientific evidence is merely your personal subjective opinion; it has nothing to do with the scientific consensus of the NDE studies.

It appears that you’re confusing the acceptance/verification of a phenomenon being factual and the explanation of a phenomenon (theoretical explanatory framework). You can deny it if this is your personal wish but from a scientific perspective, The NDE is an accepted and verified phenomenon.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It appears that you’re confusing the acceptance/verification of a phenomenon being factual and the explanation of a phenomenon (theoretical explanatory framework). You can deny it if this is your personal wish but from a scientific perspective, The NDE is an accepted and verified phenomenon.

It is the interpretation of such that is at issue. Your experts are not the ones to rule over this, given that other experts have different opinions as to what is occurring. Hence the consensus of science rather than the few experts you choose to believe as to interpretation - as to anything occurring outside of the body or apparently when the brain has died.

 

[Brian2]

It is the interpretation of such that is at issue. Your experts are not the ones to rule over this, given that other experts have different opinions as to what is occurring. Hence the consensus of science rather than the few experts you choose to believe as to interpretation - as to anything occurring outside of the body or apparently when the brain has died.

What consensus are you talking about?
Does anyone even have a view on what is happening when people who were unconscious know what was happening around them and in some cases in other places?

 

[Mock Turtle]

What consensus are you talking about?
Does anyone even have a view on what is happening when people who were unconscious know what was happening around them and in some cases in other places?

Evidence? Unless you do think there is no consensus as to such. This would be acknowledged science if it could be proven.

 

[Brian2]

Evidence? Unless you do think there is no consensus as to such. This would be acknowledged science if it could be proven.

All that science can go by is the stories told by those who claim to have experienced those things and if there is any corroboration of events from those who were there at the time.
Science already has these things.
I hear that experiments are being used to try and give more evidence. The outcomes to be seen.

 

[LIIA]

Your experts are not the ones to rule over this

What do you mean “your experts"? I gave you evidence of the scientific conclusion. See below. On the other hand, you’re making empty claims based on subjective opinion. Demonstrate the evidence for your claim other than your personal opinion.

See the link below for the article published by NIH/PMC asserting the evidence for the reality of NDEs

Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)

given that other experts have different opinions as to what is occurring

What other experts? and what different opinion?

Do you mean the critique of van Lommel's study? Pim van Lommel is one of the pioneers who opened up the subject of NDEs to the medical world, but he is not the only one. Critique of van Lommel's original study is not by any means a scientific consensus with respect to the NDE research.

Demonstrate your evidence for your claimed different consensus of other experts with respect to the NDE research.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What do you mean “your experts"? I gave you evidence of the scientific conclusion. See below. On the other hand, you’re making empty claims based on subjective opinion. Demonstrate the evidence for your claim other than your personal opinion.

See the link below for the article published by NIH/PMC asserting the evidence for the reality of NDEs

Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)



What other experts? and what different opinion?

Do you mean the critique of van Lommel's study? Pim van Lommel is one of the pioneers who opened up the subject of NDEs to the medical world, but he is not the only one. Critique of van Lommel's original study is not by any means a scientific consensus with respect to the NDE research.

Demonstrate your evidence for your claimed different consensus of other experts with respect to the NDE research.

Didn't you get the point? It is the interpretation of these that matters. We all know they exist.

 

[Mock Turtle]

All that science can go by is the stories told by those who claim to have experienced those things and if there is any corroboration of events from those who were there at the time.
Science already has these things.
I hear that experiments are being used to try and give more evidence. The outcomes to be seen.

That is not how science works - fortunately.

 

[Brian2]

That is not how science works - fortunately.

Some science has to rely on what people say is happening subjectively to them, at least in part.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Some science has to rely on what people say is happening subjectively to them, at least in part.

No doubt, and when evidence corroborates such perhaps science learns something. I think science isn't grasping the paranormal nettle because there is still much to learn.

 

[Brian2]

No doubt, and when evidence corroborates such perhaps science learns something. I think science isn't grasping the paranormal nettle because there is still much to learn.

Well some people in science are grasping that nettle because of the evidence they have found and because of the lack of answers in the current paradigms of accepted science.
But of course I can understand other people who are empiricists in what they believe for their own life, not wanting to go in that direction and resisting forever and treating spirit as no more than a hypothesis in science until they can analyse spirit.

 

[wellwisher]

Well some people in science are grasping that nettle because of the evidence they have found and because of the lack of answers in the current paradigms of accepted science.
But of course I can understand other people who are empiricists in what they believe for their own life, not wanting to go in that direction and resisting forever and treating spirit as no more than a hypothesis in science until they can analyse spirit.

There is current science that can set the foundation for such things. The second law of Thermodynamics is connected to Entropy. The Entropy of the universe has to increase.

The term entropy was first coined in the 1800's during the development of steam engines. During their many experiments there was always lost energy, that could not be accounted for using an energy balance; input did not equal output; there was X missing? The term entropy was coined to describe this lost energy. Entropy is often described as complexity and probability with complexity and probability hiding energy. It is not clear where this lost energy is since it is not exactly part of space-time; uncertainty.

When the second law says that the entropy of the universe has to increase, this means the universe is net bleeding energy via the constant increase in entropy. The universe is aging with the energy going into uncertainty.

Energy conservation tells us that energy can change form, but it cannot be destroyed. This means that although the universe is bleeding energy, that it can no longer use; 2nd law, this energy is conserved somehow or somewhere.

If you look at life and consciousness, both continually generate a lot of entropy. Inanimate matter hardly generates any. Life and Consciousness constantly adds to the pool of lost energy. When neurons fire and our memory is made conscious, this increases entropy, and adds to the pool of lost but conserved energy. The idea of an enteral soul is about our memories conserved; entropy equivalence.

Entropy does not have the units of energy. Instead E = ST, where E is energy, S is Entropy and T is Temperature. Entropy can exist at absolute zero, but energy cannot. Energy is dependent on temperature, but entropy is not. Entropy is a form of information, about a snap short in time of a given state of matter. It makes sense that our bio and neural information, that is generated with entropy, is also conserved in the pool of lost energy. The universe remembers us, based on our actions; cellular and neural activity. This has an impact on how your entropic information will pool and coagulate. Belief and faith in God is about neural activity and directed entropy generation, that pools memory around a center, so we can crystallize out again.

The Old Testament did not have this center since they believed we slept at death. The memory was there but not organized as a living soul. This changed in the New Testament; Heaven and Hell.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well some people in science are grasping that nettle because of the evidence they have found and because of the lack of answers in the current paradigms of accepted science.
But of course I can understand other people who are empiricists in what they believe for their own life, not wanting to go in that direction and resisting forever and treating spirit as no more than a hypothesis in science until they can analyse spirit.

Think what you like, but I suspect many operate the same as myself - provide the evidence and we will naturally follow such to the correct conclusions. We are not biased as to this matter, and it is more that those who believe in these possible phenomena do have an agenda - often coming from religious beliefs - and hence will do almost anything to cling on to such beliefs. Even without any real evidence to support such.

As is frequently mentioned, if anyone did have conclusive proof then it would blow away all the cobwebs and the person doing so would be rather famous. So where is such a person?